linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: check for idle core

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20201022044146.4n2jl6jzyycfhfzg@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Thu, 22 Oct 2020 10:11:46 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Gilles Muller <Gilles.Muller@...ia.fr>,
        srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: check for idle core

On 21-10-20, 20:11, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 21, 2020 3:10:26 PM CEST Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 02:19:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 01:56:55PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > > Prior to 5.8, my machine was using intel_pstate and had few background
> > > > tasks.  Thus the problem wasn't visible in practice.  Starting with 5.8
> > > > the kernel decided that intel_cpufreq would be more appropriate, which
> > > > introduced kworkers every 0.004 seconds on all cores.
> > > 
> > > That still doesn't make any sense. Are you running the legacy on-demand
> > > thing or something?
> > > 
> > > Rafael, Srinivas, Viresh, how come it defaults to that?
> > 
> > Does we want something like this?
> > 
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/configs/i386_defconfig   | 3 +--
> >  arch/x86/configs/x86_64_defconfig | 3 +--
> >  drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig           | 7 +++++--
> >  3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/configs/i386_defconfig b/arch/x86/configs/i386_defconfig
> > index 78210793d357..c343ad459737 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/configs/i386_defconfig
> > +++ b/arch/x86/configs/i386_defconfig
> > @@ -41,8 +41,7 @@ CONFIG_PM_DEBUG=y
> >  CONFIG_PM_TRACE_RTC=y
> >  CONFIG_ACPI_DOCK=y
> >  CONFIG_ACPI_BGRT=y
> > -CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_USERSPACE=y
> > -CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_ONDEMAND=y
> > +CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_SCHEDUTIL=y
> >  CONFIG_X86_ACPI_CPUFREQ=y
> >  CONFIG_EFI_VARS=y
> >  CONFIG_KPROBES=y
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/configs/x86_64_defconfig b/arch/x86/configs/x86_64_defconfig
> > index 9936528e1939..23e1ea85c1ec 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/configs/x86_64_defconfig
> > +++ b/arch/x86/configs/x86_64_defconfig
> > @@ -38,8 +38,7 @@ CONFIG_PM_DEBUG=y
> >  CONFIG_PM_TRACE_RTC=y
> >  CONFIG_ACPI_DOCK=y
> >  CONFIG_ACPI_BGRT=y
> > -CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_USERSPACE=y
> > -CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_ONDEMAND=y
> > +CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_SCHEDUTIL=y
> >  CONFIG_X86_ACPI_CPUFREQ=y
> >  CONFIG_IA32_EMULATION=y
> >  CONFIG_EFI_VARS=y
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig b/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig
> > index 2c7171e0b001..8dfca6e9b836 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig
> > @@ -37,8 +37,7 @@ config CPU_FREQ_STAT
> >  choice
> >  	prompt "Default CPUFreq governor"
> >  	default CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_USERSPACE if ARM_SA1100_CPUFREQ || ARM_SA1110_CPUFREQ
> > -	default CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_SCHEDUTIL if ARM64 || ARM
> > -	default CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_SCHEDUTIL if X86_INTEL_PSTATE && SMP
> > +	default CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_SCHEDUTIL if SMP
> >  	default CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_PERFORMANCE
> >  	help
> >  	  This option sets which CPUFreq governor shall be loaded at
> > @@ -71,6 +70,7 @@ config CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_USERSPACE
> >  
> >  config CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_ONDEMAND
> >  	bool "ondemand"
> > +	depends on !SMP
> >  	select CPU_FREQ_GOV_ONDEMAND
> >  	select CPU_FREQ_GOV_PERFORMANCE
> >  	help
> > @@ -83,6 +83,7 @@ config CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_ONDEMAND
> >  
> >  config CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_CONSERVATIVE
> >  	bool "conservative"
> > +	depends on !SMP
> >  	select CPU_FREQ_GOV_CONSERVATIVE
> >  	select CPU_FREQ_GOV_PERFORMANCE
> >  	help
> 
> The changes above should work.
> 
> > @@ -144,6 +145,7 @@ config CPU_FREQ_GOV_USERSPACE
> >  
> >  config CPU_FREQ_GOV_ONDEMAND
> >  	tristate "'ondemand' cpufreq policy governor"
> > +	depends on !SMP
> 
> But I don't think that we can do this and the one below.

I have exactly the same comments.

> >  	select CPU_FREQ_GOV_COMMON
> >  	help
> >  	  'ondemand' - This driver adds a dynamic cpufreq policy governor.
> > @@ -163,6 +165,7 @@ config CPU_FREQ_GOV_ONDEMAND
> >  config CPU_FREQ_GOV_CONSERVATIVE
> >  	tristate "'conservative' cpufreq governor"
> >  	depends on CPU_FREQ
> > +	depends on !SMP
> >  	select CPU_FREQ_GOV_COMMON
> >  	help
> >  	  'conservative' - this driver is rather similar to the 'ondemand'
> > 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
viresh